That was my first reaction too...

But will it run Crysis?

Came to instigate a reinstallation. Saw that I was beaten to it. Left satisfied.

Everytime someone mentions Deus Ex, someone reinstalls Deus Ex

Oh shut your filthy cunt-hole.

I almost closed out my comment by saying that I was channeling you.

C'mon, to a Yuropeen, Ohio and California are exactly the same thing, but Scotland and England are totally different.

Now this is better commentary than that which you've been putting out of late.

Unfortunately, isn't this laziness vs. strongman similar to the ignorance vs. evil-genius dichotomy pushed forth under Bush II by his opponents?

Oh shut the fuck up already.

Here's to you if that happens to work in your environment. The demands of our costumers are different.

We prefer monitoring checks that are on a business-relevant level. If a process runs or not -- that's what systemd is telling us -- is irrelevant for our level of monitring. It might be a first stage, but that should be obsoleted by proper monitoring conditions. We need monitoring checks that tell us if an account can be opened, if an order can be plaed. Monitoring needs to tell if the business is running. Technical terms like daemons have a rather minor place in this. The real test: can the customer do the things we want him to do.

No customer of us wants to know if our JBoss cluster is running. What they want to know if orders could be placed via the application that's running on our JBoss cluster. And it's our damned professional obligation to provide that information, and not hide behind the excuse "JBoss was not running".

Proper monitoring, as I think about it and as we practice it, is about business-relevant data. It's not about a daemon runnning on one system. It's about "how long does a customer wait to get a dialog served to order a system. Or, "how long does it take to deliver the promised system to the customer." So we create and change new systems, to see how long it takes. If it takes too long, we establish new instances to make that workflow go faster. That's, IMNSHO, is what cloud computing is about: atomatic attaching *and* detaching instances of standardized instances, that are never touched manually, to realize the perfornamce demand of our customer.

I don't demand cloud-like infrastructure recoginition in this discussion (though I'm most familiar with it). But standard virtualized data center environments already show the problems I'm talking about.

Don't get me wrong: I actually like systemd. My probem is that some of its proponents try to sell it for tasks that it has never been made for and will not deliver it. E.g., proper monitoring, a.k.a. business-relevant delivery of information about services

Thinking about it, your might have found a hole in the setup that I deliver to our clients. Folks might have setup daemon-process-based monitoring and left it at this. Grmmbl. Seems we have to detect this low-level monitoring, to escalate it to a proper monitoring in our infrastructure. Thanks for this insight.

One you just happen to have for this purpose? Sure, whatever you say.

You and I have very different opinions what "monitoring" is. In my book, systemd does no monitoring at all. It supervizes the daemon it has started, can most often tell if this service processes are running or not (sadly, not reliably enough) and can restart them if necessary. But that's not monitoring.

Get the current login; from Usenix; there's a good article what monitoring is about. It's not about tools. It's about data that is collected by Nagios and its like, collected in systems like Ganglia, and used to manage and to plan services in an overall environment, not per system.

Specific tools are not relevant; that you *do* monitoring for your whole data center on a service level, not on a system's daemon/process level, is relevant.

Alternatively, somebody has to take the time to set-up exhaustive monitoring, including ALL the trivial services running on the servers, and some dummy has to watch it around the clock, and manually perform this extremely simple and menial task. Or else maybe you're the dummy who gets paged at 3AM to do a trivial service restart, due to some simple and transitory event.

That, from a 6-digit /. id, lower than mine, makes me almost speachless.

If you don't have a setup system that establishs monitoring automatically and without manual intervention on all new systems; if you have manual supervision of basic monitoring events; if you don't have built-in fail-over strategies -- well, good luck in doing your job. FWIW, what you're doing is not state of the art. If you're responsible for it or if you can influence its architecture, you should work hard to improve the state of your affairs.

The 80s have gone, where we could hand-held every single system we had to manage. These lucky times are over. Thinking about it, they weren't so lucky at all. Porting X10 just to have a graphical desktop was no fun, even though I thought so at that time. Young and foolish and so... ;-)

The assignment today for most people in admin area is to handle 100s to 1.000s of systems. One needs to establish proper means to do so; and manual work ain't it. (You won't be in the situation to handle 10,000s to 100,000s or even millions of systems; otherwise you wouldn't have posted the comment cited above.)

The Beretta 92fs is a dream. The 96, not so much. Much preferred is the Glock 22c. That little c actually makes a difference to me. A big difference. YMMV, and those suckers stopped making them, IIRC.

Just ask your mom.